DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the plasticizing screw is an injection screw but also recites the injection piston is an injection screw. A piston and screw are separate and distinct types of structures as the claims would indicate as claim 9 recites a screw and/or a piston. Therefore, it is unclear how the piston could also be an injection screw as this appears to be a recitation of mutually exclusive structures. For examination purposes the plasticizing screw is assumed to be an injection screw.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 10-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suehara et al. US 2003/0047506.
Claim 1, Suehara teaches a filter device for a fluid, the device comprising: a filter body (30-33, 35) and an adjusting body (the portion of 34 containing 34a) movable relative to the filter body between a first position and a second position, wherein the filter body and the adjusting body are configured such that in a first position of the adjusting body a first flow path for fluid is defined by channels in the filter body and in the adjusting body, wherein the first flow path is configured such that the fluid is filtered, and in a second position of the adjusting body a second flow path for the fluid is defined by channels in the filter body and in the adjusting body, wherein the second flow path is configured such that the filter element is at least partially backflushed, the filter body and the adjusting body are further configured to have a supply opening (30a) to allow the fluid to enter into the filter device and a discharge opening (31a) to allow the fluid to exit the filter device, the first flow path and the second flow path leading form the supply opening to the discharge opening (fig. 1-5). The recitation of the device being for plasticized molded material, in particular plasticized plastic is a recitation of intended use and does not provide any further structural limitations to the apparatus. Suehara teaches a plasticized plastic (abstract).
Claims 6-8, 10 and 13-14, Suehara further teaches the filter body includes a filter component (35) having several channels (35d), to produce split flow paths through the filter device (fig. 1-5); the filter body has at least two filter components (33, 35) arranged concentrically one within the other (35 being within 33) (fig. 1-5); the supply opening is precisely one supply opening to allow entry of fluid into the filter device, and the discharge opening is precisely one discharge opening to allow fluid to exit out of the filter device, the first flow path and the second flow path lead from the precisely one supply opening to the precisely one discharge opening (fig. 1-5); a molding machine comprising a filter device according to claim 1 (fig. 1-5, par 2); the filter component is one of a plurality of filter components (33, 35) each having several channels (33a, 35d) to produce split flow paths through the filter device (fig. 1-5); and channels (33a, 35d) are formed at least partially between the at least two filter components (fig. 1-5).
Claims 9 and 15, Suehara teaches a n injection unit (3) comprising: a barrel (7), a plasticizing injection screw arranged in the barrel and the filter device (at 13) according to claim 1 downstream of the barrel (fig. 1).
Claim 11, Suehara teaches a method for operating the filter device of claim 1, for filtering plasticized molding material, the method comprising: filtering the plasticized molding material via channels (35d) of the filter body in the first position of the adjusting body relative to the filter body of the filter device, and at least partially backflushing the channels of the filter body in the second position of the adjusting body relative to the filter body (fig. 1-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant incorporated subject matter from previously recited claim 8 into claim 1; claim 8 being indicated as allowable. However, applicant did not incorporate all of the limitations of the intervening claims, namely claims 2 and 3, into claim 1. For this reason, claim 1 is not allowable despite incorporating the subject matter of claim 8 for the reasons stated in the rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2, the closest prior art to Suehara teaches the filter device of claim 1 where the adjusting body (at 34a) is a first adjusting body, the filter device further comprising a second adjusting body (at 34b) movable relative to the filter body between a third and fourth position but does not teach the second adjusting body being movable relative to the first adjusting body nor would it have been obvious to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3-5 and 12 are allowable as depending from claim 2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779